Electronic Court judgements

Browse all Court Judgements

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court holding that the Food and Agriculture Organisation (“the FAO”), an international organisation, did not enjoy absolute immunity from every form of legal process and execution in Zimbabwe. More

On 12 February 2020, the High Court dismissed with costs an application for the confirmation of the Reconstruction Order (RO) issued on 26 October 2018, by the appellant in terms of s 4 of the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [Chapter 24:27] (the Act), against Hwange Colliery Company Ltd. The present appeal seeks to upend that judgment. More

MUREMBA J: The applicant was sued by the two respondents in HC 5141/19 and HC 5140/19 respectively. The two respondents are claiming damages in the sum of US$23 000.00 and US$17 000.00 respectively arising from the injuries they allegedly sustained after having been shot by members of the Zimbabwe National Army who were acting in the course and scope of their employment. The applicant is being sued on the basis of vicarious liability since she is the minister responsible for the Zimbabwe National Army. More

The applicant has filed a chamber application for removal of a bar in in terms of Order 12 r 84 (1a) of the High Court Rules 1971, [hereinafter referred to as the rules]. More

On 7 July 2021under case No. HC 741/21 in the matter between DESTINY VENTURES (PROPRIETARY) LTD (BOTSWANA) and UNITED NATIONS CHILDRENS FUND, this Court issued a default order against the respondent UNICEF. More

This matter proceeded by way of a stated case, the parties having agreed that there were no material disputes of fact in the matter. More

The applicant applied for leave to continue with proceedings under case number HC 242/17 (ref case No. HC 12080/16) against the respondent who is under judicial management for the recovery of $42 624.86. The applicant is one of about 25 creditors who are owed money by the respondent. More

This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal against the decision of Rushambwa, Esquire Magistrate sitting at Zvishavane Magistrates’ Court on 27 March 2015. More

Applicants applied to this Court for rescission of judgement in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01` as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondent opposed the application. More

The applicant is a Minister of Government in Zimbabwe. He is in charge of, among other things, social welfare. Evidently not wanting to be left behind in this digital era, he contracted the first respondent to supply both the hardware and the software for a biometric or card-based platform to facilitate the administration of social welfare programmes to vulnerable groups in society across the country. More

The delay in the hand down of this judgement is sincerely regretted. The matter was placed before me as an application for the issuance of a disposal order. The application was made pursuant to Section 107 (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. The application was opposed by 2nd Respondent and supported by 1st Respondent. Both Respondents appeared for a hearing on the 13th of July 2022. More

This is an application for condonation of late noting of rescission of judgment application at the instance of the applicant employer. Facts giving rise to the matter are that the respondent employee made his review application to the Labour Court in a case pitting him and the applicant employer. The employer failed to file its response to the review timeously and the matter was subsequently set down for hearing in terms of rule 22 Labour Court rules. More

The applicant seeks condonation for late filing of Notice of Response. The respondent was dismissed from the applicant’s employment following a misconduct determination by applicant’s Disciplinary Authority on 25 February 2014. The respondent noted an appeal with this Court on 27 March 2014. The Notice of Appeal was served on the applicant on 2 April 2014. More

On 5th July 2012 this Court made an order. The terms of the order read as follows, “Respondent having failed to file its response in terms of Rule 15 of the Labour Court Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006: and further having also failed to show good cause for such failure to file a notice of response, a default judgment be and is hereby entered against the Respondent. The appeal is consequently allowed by reason of Respondent’s default.” (The underlining for emphasis is mine) More

This matter was set down before me as a rescission of judgment application by the employer of a judgment which was granted in default by the Labour Court in favour of the employee. Parties will in the entirety of this judgment be referred to as employer and employee to avoid confusing the record since the record is replete with the parties interchanging roles depending on what application was before the court at the various stages. More